Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would choose Rice.

Sorry, but no school in a state where Greg Abbott is the governor deserves serious consideration. Rice would be an easy "hell no" for me.

As between Amherst and Columbia, the academics at both are excellence, so it's a question of personal preference. There will be more hand-holding at Amherst, but it's a bit insular. Columbia is for the self-assured, who want to live in NYC and are prepared to be more independent at a younger age.

You are not only “sorry,” but you are also a fool.

Rice! Great school in a fun city, nice campus, excellent reputation, very strong academics, warm weather. Columbia has too many problems right now and would be difficult to go to undergrad in NYC. Amherst is too small and too rural.

Anonymous wrote:How is this a ?

Rice is in Texas.

Before Republicans went insane sure awesome choice now.

Hell no.

How is this a ?

Before Columbia went insane sure awesome now.

Hell no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice. No question.

Amherst second.

Really? I would have said Columbia, Amherst, and finally Rice. Nothing against Rice, but it’s less well known and it’s in Texas. Not really a state known for academic excellence.

I think Rice is more well known nationally than Amherst. And I don’t base my opinion of academic excellence at different colleges on what state they’re in. That’s ridiculous and quite biased. Texas is the 2nd largest state in the country by population with 30 million people and you’re going to write off the whole state as an academic wasteland? Stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think even given the current climate/protests, Columbia is an Ivy and you don’t turn down an Ivy. My second choice would be Rice. I loved Rice when I visited. Amherst is too small and too remote for me.

I hope that you are kidding, but know that you are not.

Really depends upon one's major and upon one's other options.

Stanford, MIT, Caltech, about a dozen schools of engineering, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, specialty schools (all female, military,drama, music, etc.) = are all good reasons to turn down an Ivu League offer.

I meant you don’t turn down an Ivy for Amherst or Rice. Not that I wouldn’t turn down an Ivy for Stanford or MIT (because in that case I would turn down the Ivy bc I think Stanford and MIT are better).

Why? Simply because it’s an Ivy. That would show a lack of critical thinking.

Because, as has been stated in this thread, of the alumni network/the connections post graduation. Like it or not, being an Ivy grad will open more doors for you than being an Amherst or Rice grad.

Is there any data to show that or is this pure conjecture?

Of course it's pure conjecture. Some people are obsessed with the Ivy League. I'm pretty sure even Notre Dame and Michigan offer a more useful network than Columbia.[b] I'm also pretty confident being a Rice and Amherst grad is going to open more doors going forward than graduating from Columbia[i].

It’s ironic you call the PP “pure conjecture” and then offer your own pure conjecture. 😂

Not PP, but it sounds more like an opinion to me than “your own pure conjecture”

Conjecture: an opinion [based on incomplete information.]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think even given the current climate/protests, Columbia is an Ivy and you don’t turn down an Ivy. My second choice would be Rice. I loved Rice when I visited. Amherst is too small and too remote for me.

I hope that you are kidding, but know that you are not.

Really depends upon one's major and upon one's other options.

Stanford, MIT, Caltech, about a dozen schools of engineering, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, specialty schools (all female, military,drama, music, etc.) = are all good reasons to turn down an Ivu League offer.

I meant you don’t turn down an Ivy for Amherst or Rice. Not that I wouldn’t turn down an Ivy for Stanford or MIT (because in that case I would turn down the Ivy bc I think Stanford and MIT are better).

Why? Simply because it’s an Ivy. That would show a lack of critical thinking.

Because, as has been stated in this thread, of the alumni network/the connections post graduation. Like it or not, being an Ivy grad will open more doors for you than being an Amherst or Rice grad.

Is there any data to show that or is this pure conjecture?

Of course it's pure conjecture. Some people are obsessed with the Ivy League. I'm pretty sure even Notre Dame and Michigan offer a more useful network than Columbia.[b] I'm also pretty confident being a Rice and Amherst grad is going to open more doors going forward than graduating from Columbia[i].

It’s ironic you call the PP “pure conjecture” and then offer your own pure conjecture. 😂

Not PP, but it sounds more like an opinion to me than “your own pure conjecture”

What do you think ‘conjecture’ means?

This thread has so much false information, it would be better to just discard this whole discussion for the OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would choose Rice.

Sorry, but no school in a state where Greg Abbott is the governor deserves serious consideration. Rice would be an easy "hell no" for me.

As between Amherst and Columbia, the academics at both are excellence, so it's a question of personal preference. There will be more hand-holding at Amherst, but it's a bit insular. Columbia is for the self-assured, who want to live in NYC and are prepared to be more independent at a younger age.

Fair enough. But generally I don't think state politics is a really useful metric when deciding schools. There are more Republicans in California than in any other state. The areas around Dartmouth and Cornell and other small towns in New England and upstate NY are going to have far more Trumpers near campus than in a blue city like Houston. Same with Nashville, Atlanta etc, which typically have Democratic mayors. Meanwhile, NYC often has Republican mayors. There's too much local variance within each state for the political affiliation of a governor to be useful. Kentucky is a red state with a blue governor. And Maryland and Mass are blue states that have long had red governors. Personally, I don't find state politics useful when choosing colleges. Not all southerners are inbred goobers; and not all northerners are particularly enlightened.

Anonymous wrote:Amherst without question!

Agree

Texas has a lot more jobs and housing with lower cost of living so it makes lot more sense in current economy.

Financial aid is bound to be better at Rice and Amherst than Columbia. For full pay, Rice is a no brainer with lower cost and lower cost of living. For people looking for merit scholarships, for exceptional candidates, Rice has some.

Ten years ago, it would've been Amherst, Columbia, Rice but schools, economy, environment and students have changed a lot. Today, I would rate them as Rice, Amherst, Columbia.

Anonymous wrote:Amherst without question!

Eh, depends on cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would choose Rice.

Sorry, but no school in a state where Greg Abbott is the governor deserves serious consideration. Rice would be an easy "hell no" for me.

As between Amherst and Columbia, the academics at both are excellence, so it's a question of personal preference. There will be more hand-holding at Amherst, but it's a bit insular. Columbia is for the self-assured, who want to live in NYC and are prepared to be more independent at a younger age.

Just visit Houston and Rice to find out how liberal both are.

Anonymous wrote:I would choose Rice.

Sorry, but no school in a state where Greg Abbott is the governor deserves serious consideration. Rice would be an easy "hell no" for me.

As between Amherst and Columbia, the academics at both are excellence, so it's a question of personal preference. There will be more hand-holding at Amherst, but it's a bit insular. Columbia is for the self-assured, who want to live in NYC and are prepared to be more independent at a younger age.